More than a few fans of the Edmonton Oilers have been watching the Stanley Cup Finals with some envy. In Los Angeles, both Jarret Stoll and Matt Greene did an excellent job in specific roles, helping the Kings to their first ever Stanley Cup win. The Kings acquired the pair from Edmonton back in the summer of 2008 in exchange for Lubomir Visnovsky.

We’ve previously discussed the way that playing for a good team versus a bad team can shift perceptions of a useful role player – Colin Fraser seemed like a much better fourth-liner in Los Angeles than he did in Edmonton, and to some extent the same effect is happening here.

Prior to this season, Stoll and Greene had never made it out of the first round with the Kings. In the three years before this one, Los Angeles had won a total of four playoff games. Stoll had never come close to recapturing the 68-point form he’d had in Edmonton back in 2005-06 (in fact, this season he picked up six goals and 21 points, worse totals than his rookie year). Greene was improved from his time in Edmonton – where both his discipline and positioning had been questionable – and had rounded into a solid #5 defenseman who could also kill penalties, but even so he wasn’t entrusted with the toughest assignments; the Kings brought in Rob Scuderi and Willie Mitchell to take those.

It’s important not to overstate the contribution of the duo to this year’s championship.

Jarret Stoll remains a physical center who excels on the penalty kill, has good size, and can play a third line role. That’s what he did in L.A., behind Anze Kopitar and Mike Richards. He’s a good NHL player in that role, but he’s also extremely limited – especially offensively. Despite playing 17:06 per game, he finished ninth of the Kings’ top-nine forwards in scoring. At times this season, when the Kings were starving for offense, Stoll was part of the problem. Colin Fraser was more likely to pick up a point on any given even-strength shift. Adjusting for ice-time, Shawn Horcoff contributed 35% more offense than Stoll – and unlike Stoll, Horcoff played top opponents all season long.

I don’t mean to beat up on Stoll here – he’s a very good defensive forward – but it’s important not to misstate what he is. He’s a checking line forward who needs power play time to get points; at even-strength, his attention to defense means that goals are few and far between.

It’s a similar story with Matt Greene. He’s a useful number five defenseman – and I was very impressed with his work on the penalty kill – but the way his coach used him betrays his limitations. Take Game Six against New Jersey. Ilya Kovalchuk played almost 15 minutes of even-strength ice-time; Greene lined up against him for less than two. Alexei Ponikarovsky played just over 11; Greene saw him for six full minutes. It’s a pattern that held true all through the post-season for L.A. – Greene and his regular partner, Alec Martinez, consistently got the bottom-six players from the other team as regular opponents, and consistently spent less time in their own end than the other two defense pairings.

That’s not a slight on Greene; he’s a good third-pairing defenseman. But it’s important to remember that he wasn’t a top-four, Jason Smith-style shutdown option for the Kings. Those jobs went to superior players – Rob Scuderi and Willie Mitchell.

That’s why I think the Oilers made the right decision when they traded for Lubomir Visnovsky. They moved a pair of good support players for a highly-talented blue-liner. It was a trade that made sense at the time, and if they could trade a third-line centre and a third-pairing defender for a talent like Visnovsky today they’d be crazy not to do so.

Visnovsky is not only a top-four defenseman, he’s the exact sort of offensive threat the Oilers have been lacking since they dealt him to Anaheim. In his first year, he picked up 31 points in 50 games. He scored 45 the next year; in 2010-11 he led all NHL defensemen with 68 points. This year he was slowed by injury but still managed to record 27 points, six more than Stoll did. Despite playing for two lousy teams in Edmonton and Anaheim, he’s a plus-21 since leaving L.A.; Stoll and Greene combined are plus-14 despite making the playoffs in three of four seasons with the Kings.

That’s not to say the Kings made a mistake when they dealt Visnovsky. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine he would still be with the Kings today even had they kept him; his salary would have made him an extravagance on such a deep blue line.

But the Oilers made a move that benefitted their team when they pulled the trigger on that deal, sending away depth players – good depth players, but depth players all the same – to address a position of need, a position that still needs to be addressed in the worst way. It was the right call.

Post-script: This piece was written prior to my reading Craig MacTavish's thoughts on the Visnovsky trade. I'm still not convinced; for all the virtues of both Stoll and Greene, Visnovsky was easily the best player in the deal and the kind of piece the Oilers have consistently needed since Pronger's departure.

Previously in this series

Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer.
He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report.
He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.

Using only paper stats only tells one side of the story. Stoll and Greene were great leaders, and I know you think this has no value, but sorry you are wrong.

Glue guys are key to winning, and the Oilers have none of them. Stoll would be a perfect fit here. Wins draws, good in own zone and would be heavy right handed shot on PP.

You can say you'd rather have Visnovsky than Stoll and Greene cause he's, in your eyes, the better player, but facts are facts. Oilers didn't improve with Visnovsky on team.

And 35 of his 63 points over two years came on PP with Oilers. He needed PP to score just like Stoll.

Visnovsky doesn't seem to help teams win. Which is biggest key in my books. If he was as dominant as some suggest his teams would have had more success, but when he's your #1 D, teams haven't won. What does that tell you?

If Whitney is healthy there is no question. On this team right now Stoll would be an upgrade on our 4th line centre and Green would be an upgrade on our 3rd deffensive pairing. 4th line centres and 3rd pairing defenseman are much easier to come by than a 1b/2a pairing defenseman. If Whitney regains his form and remains healthy he is one of our best defenseman, and those top pairing, minute munching defensemen are the main point of need on this team.

If Whitney is healthy there is no question. On this team right now Stoll would be an upgrade on our 4th line centre and Green would be an upgrade on our 3rd deffensive pairing. 4th line centres and 3rd pairing defenseman are much easier to come by than a 1b/2a pairing defenseman. If Whitney regains his form and remains healthy he is one of our best defenseman, and those top pairing, minute munching defensemen are the main point of need on this team.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs on the wording but the Oilers definately didn't make the right decision on that trade.

They made a good trade based on talent or on paper but it clearly was not the 'right' trade for this team.

And to be clear I liked the deal at the time and I still like Lubo more than any player involved (I like all three) but it wasn't a good deal for the organization.

One detail that I go back to when thinking about that trade was Stoll's concussion problems. At the time he was moved it looked like there was a very real chance he would never be the player he was 2 years earlier. In the end he fully recovered and I am glad for him that he did but it does change the circumstances of the time when you think back.

By the QualComp numbers, Visnovsky and Lydman got the tough competition last year, when he led all defensemen in scoring. This year, it looks like the Beauchemin pairing got that role, while Visnovsky was used more as an offensive defender on the second pairing.

(The same thing applies to zone-starts. Last year, Visnovsky started way more in his own end; this year more in the offensive zone. I suspect that's Boudreau's approach to maximizing the benefit of Visnovsky's skillset, but it could be related to injury or a simple belief that Beauchemin is a better option defensively. Or all three.)

I get the value of glue guys, but let's not pretend that L.A.'s championship came on the back of them either - Penner, Carter and Richards have all been tagged as 'problem' players by the media at points over the last couple of seasons, and all three were prominent players in the Kings' run. Arguably all three were more prominent than Stoll or Greene. The idea that what happens in the room is more important than what happens on the ice is crazy; it matters but it's clearly subordinate.

As for 'Visnovsky doesn't help teams win' remind me how many championships Ray Bourque had in Boston? Or how many championships Gretzky had post-Edmonton? Judging a player by team accomplishments is a terrible way to evaluate talent.

I don't think I could make an accurate decision without seeing Horcoff playing the same role as Stoll. Horcoff has been playing a bigger role and would think his numbers would drop in a role similar to stolls.

Would you sign Jarret Stoll on July 1st? Not sure he'd want to come back to the Oilers, but from our point of view he'd represent a huge upgrade on Belanger surely.

As for his offensive output, whilst I agree he needs the PP to score, it looks to me like he had a Belanger-type season - nothing went his way and historically he's a much better scorer than this year shows. I haven't looked at the deeper numbers, but I can't imagine that Stoll's ability on offence just vanished. What was his PP time the last 3 years when he had 40+ points?

Eddie he hasn't been in playoffs, thanks for proving my point that he doesn't lead teams to victory.

Also elite D-men don't jump by 30 points one year and then go back down. Most stay fairly consistent.

Go look at Pronger, Niedermayer and Lidstom...point total fairly even, rather than odd 30 point increases...

And I did watch Visnovsky last year for Ducks...Wasn't a guy who controlled play like many true #1s.

Just out of curiosity did you look at the games player in each of those season totals? I'm with you though I don't view him as an elite level defenseman. For me he would be more of a #3 with lots of PP time.

This was my exact argument in the Mixed Bag comment section. It's like you tapped into my mind here.

To add something. This type of player, a Top 2 D who is adept at moving the puck, is exactly the type of player the Oilers are rumoured to be asking for in return for the 1st overall pick. And they already got him once in exchange for two 3rd line players.

The oil took a stab at getting an offensive dman at a time when they needed one and were relatively good at finding grinders/glueguys (based on previous history with klo running the show). Since then (coincidentally or not coincidentally after Tambo has been running the show) they've worked themselves into a position of being able to grab elite level players via the draft but seemingly inept at procuring grinders/glueguys, hence our continuous lament for guys like Stoll and Greene. Seems to me we should be employing the proper management who CAN find these guys effectively. Perhaps hiring Mac-T is a step in the right direction.

I'm not saying Lubo is a leader. I'm not even saying he is an elite #1 D-Man.
You compare him to Lidstrom, Pronger and Niedermayer. Name me one person or a GM in the world that would trade you Lidstrom/Pronger/Niedermayer for Stoll and Greene?

Just so I understand: you're blaming Lubos team lack of success on his point total? Nothing to do with the group that surrounds him, just his point total?

Lubo is a #2 D-Man and should be on any team. Maybe he just never had a right team to win on, like Ray.

OF course no one would trade Stoll/Greene for Lubo, which illustrates my point. Never was #1 D-man, but been paid like one for years. And he's not a guy you build around. Better than Stoll and Greene individually, no question, but he history proves he doesn't help his team win.

I wouldn't sign him simply because I think on July 1 he's going to be heavily valued thanks to this playoff run in L.A. - I expect he gets more money than he's really worth as a free agent. If he isn't, than maybe, but I bet he hits pay dirt.

Just to be clear - my intention wasn't so much to compare Visnovsky to other guys, just to say that I hate the 'this player is good because their team did THIS' argument.

Mario Lemieux made the playoffs once in his first six seasons; if he'd played for crappy teams his whole career he never would have won anything. Obviously he was the most important part of that Pittsburgh team, but no matter how good the individual if he plays for a bad team he isn't going to go anywhere.

OF course no one would trade Stoll/Greene for Lubo, which illustrates my point. Never was #1 D-man, but been paid like one for years. And he's not a guy you build around. Better than Stoll and Greene individually, no question, but he history proves he doesn't help his team win.

Horcoff is paid like he is the #1 in the league. It is not Horcoffs fault, just like it isn't Lubos fault what he gets paid. What GMs decided to pay them falls on them and not the players.

Bourque made Bruins competative not champions. Avalanche made Bourque a champion.

You misread my comment. I was saying that Lubo is not Pronger or Lidstrom due to the fact that neither one of the two players would be gotten for Stoll and Greene, Lubo was.

I don't think it is fair to judge a player by the success of their team, ex: Ilya and Thrashers.

Hey Jason, because of Horcoff's salary absolutely I would take Stoll over Horcoff. Other than that I would think they are very comparable players.

Do you think Stoll is a better player? If so, which aspects of his game are signifigantly better. I think horcoff is an efficient 3rd line centre. not the best in the league but certainly not the worst.

I do think Stoll is better physically which could be used on this team.

Yes Jon, but he eventually made his teams competitive. Visnovsky never has. Not sure why you don't see this. Compare him to other D-man in his pay scale and show me others who had as little success as him.

Also Mario only missed playoffs in his first FOUR years, not six. He made playoffs in his 5th year, the year he scored 199 points.

And I don't hate the player, just pointing out that he hasn't been a difference maker. Sometimes better players, don't make teams better.

Saw what looked like a silly proposition at first but as I thought of it a bit more, it started to intrigue me. Gags and Smid to Anaheim for 6th overall and rights to J. Schultz. It seems to make sense to me value wise, might have to throw in a mid-round draft pick or something to make all sides happy but what does everyone think?

Use 6th to draft either another D-man like Reinhart, Dumba or Reilly (whoever is available) or possibly one of the C still available (Galchenyuk or Grigorenko). Could still use number 1 on Yakupov or trade it for more proven assets or that Toronto package (Schenn + 5th).

One team wins the Cup every year, so if a team loses the final, they aren't good. As if.

Bourque went to two finals, and had Bruins in playoffs every year, 19 of 21 seasons.

Visnovsky missed playoffs 7 years in a row. He played most minutes on his team most of the those years. He had chance to influence game more than most, and he didn't do enough to get them even into the playoffs.

The reason Lubo was traded for them, and for Whitney is because he isn't as valuable as people think. History shows it. He doesn't help teams win consistently.

6th overall is there too. I'm not saying it's a no-brainer but I think there is merit to it. and I figured including J. Schultz would absolutely include working out a deal with him first. I know Smid and Gags have quality but I think L. Schenn could play Smid's game too and he's 5 years younger. So having 5th and 6th overall plus Schenn and J. Schultz under contract is worth that price to me. It's all good if you wouldn't. Neither of us are GM, just a discussion starter.

Tiger, I don't think it is that we don't believe it as much as we have no depth.

we simply do not have 4 lines of NHL players or 7 NHL defensemen.

We do require some big bodied grit on the 4th line and in my opinion a willing feared enforcer that can at least be dressed against certain teams. Our good players are small enough we do need some protection for them. The problem is we have been signing or promoting a full line of AHL, or enforcer, or castoffs that are not capable skillwise of keeping up. One player you can live with.....but a full 5 is way too much of a liability.

Cap room always comes into play as well. If Stoll or another physical but reasonably good player would sign an affordable contract I have to believe the Oil would jump at it....even for their 4th, otherwise there is more trouble than we all believe.

One team wins the Cup every year, so if a team loses the final, they aren't good. As if.

Bourque went to two finals, and had Bruins in playoffs every year, 19 of 21 seasons.

Visnovsky missed playoffs 7 years in a row. He played most minutes on his team most of the those years. He had chance to influence game more than most, and he didn't do enough to get them even into the playoffs.

The reason Lubo was traded for them, and for Whitney is because he isn't as valuable as people think. History shows it. He doesn't help teams win consistently.

It still sounds like you are saying one of two things:

1. #1 Defenseman should be able to take team to playoffs regardless of team; or

2. #2 defensemen don't help teams win games.

I know this isn't what you mean, but these are the implications of the arguments you are making.

You can probably stop with all the "#1 D-men do this," and "#1 D do that." Whether he is a #1 or #2 is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. I am perfectly happy to accept that a team would be better if he was their #2 than if he was their #1, because it means they are a better team.

The problem is we have been signing or promoting a full line of AHL, or enforcer, or castoffs that are not capable skillwise of keeping up. One player you can live with.....but a full 5 is way too much of a liability.

We have a winner.

There have been better players available for the fourth line but they choose instead to do what you just outlined above.

I would not even consider the 5th and Schenn for the 1st. If they did Gardiner Shcenn and the 5th then we have a deal. At very least i would want Gardiner, 5th, and another pick.

I think in time if we got lucky and developed well Schenn may be similar to Smid, but he is a long way off right now. Also Smid improved a tonne this year. Who knows if he has reached his ceiling. I would not consider trading Smid for the 5th pick or any defenseman in this draft.

Smid wants to stay here. He loves Edmonton and I believe will take a hometown discount to stay long term. If Schultz would sign here if we dealt for him, Then we would have an awful good chance signing him on July 1. I would have to think a much better chance with a stronger team by not giving up good current assets for potential future assets.